Theological musings

Monday, March 24, 2008

Our society has fallen into the trap of "protecting" ourselves from a lot of hard truths, and unfortunately, many parts of the church (**cough!**Osteen!**cough!**) have gone right along with the trend. If we can count on anybody to be straight with us, it should be people who bring us the Word of God. If you work in Christian education and you think that some parts of the Gospel are too harsh for everyone, then I humbly encourage you to find another line of work.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

When Christians say we are saved from sin, that doesn't just mean that a lot of stuff we've done is wiped from our permanent record. It means that we are transformed through Christ. When we understand what exactly we're being saved from, it makes the gift that much more amazing.

As they say, read the whole thing. As always, no analogy is perfect, but I quite like his arrow thingy.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men was nothing but a 'legend'.

Dr Rowan Williams has claimed there was little evidence that the Magi even existed and there was certainly nothing to prove there were three of them or that they were kings.

Dr Williams argued that the traditional Christmas story was nothing but a 'legend'

He said the only reference to the wise men from the East was in Matthew's gospel and the details were very vague.

Dr Williams said: "Matthew's gospel says they are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that's all we're really told. It works quite well as legend."

Well, let's take a look.

Mat 2:1-13 ESV Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, (2) saying, "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." (3) When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; (4) and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. (5) They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet: (6) "'And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.'" (7) Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. (8) And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him." (9) After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. (10) When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. (11) And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. (12) And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way. (13) Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him."

As you can see, scripture doesn't even tell us that much. The archbishop's position that there is little evidence of the existence of the wise men only works if you take the position that the Bible cannot be relied upon barring outside corroborating evidence. That would not be a surprising position for an atheist, but for the leader of a Christian church, this is a truly flabbergasting position. (Unless you've been following what passes for theological debate amongst the "intellectuals" in many churches, the Anglican Union included.)

However, there certainly is no evidence in scripture that these men were kings. This is strictly supposition. Further, he's right that there is no evidence that there were three of them. This tradition is based largely on the fact that there were three gifts (gold, frankincense, and myrrh). While not an unreasonable supposition that three gifts meas three men, it is still just an inference.

However Dr. Williams makes his own set of inferences from Matthew's gospel. He says, "Matthew's gospel says they are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that's all we're really told. It works quite well as legend." It's somewhat difficult to understand where he gets this information, but it's not from the text.

Here is what Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionary has to say about the word translated "wise men":

Given that the wise men followed a star, it's not unreasonable to surmise that they were astrologers, but as far as I can tell, that's still just a supposition. Mathew doesn't appear to say anything that indicates the men were priests. This also is not unreasonable, but certainly not clearly stated. Further, there's absolutely nothing to indicate, beyond supposition, that they came from beyond the Roman empire, other than the time factor which we'll talk about later. In short, while complaining that people are extrapolating much out of the ambiguous descriptions of Matthew, he certainly seems to be doing much the same thing.

While we're discussing the wise men and the nativity scene, he totally ignores a rather obvious point. Nativity scenes typically depict both the shepherds and the wise men appearing in the stables. This seems an an unlikely interpretation of the scriptural timeline.

Note that in verse 11, Matthew clearly states that when the wise men appeared, they came to the house to see Mary and the child. Note further, verse 16:

Mat 2:16 ESV Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.

We'd previously seen that Herod inquired of the wise men when they first saw the star. Now, when he realizes they aren't coming back, he orders the death of every boy two years old or less. When you combine the fact that Mary and Joseph had apparently found more permanent accommodations with the fact that Herod clearly didn't believe he was looking for a newborn, it seems likely that some time had passed since the birth of Christ until the wise men appeared. They certainly weren't in the stable. (The only reason from scripture to surmise that the wise men came from beyond the Roman Empire was that it apparently took them quite some time to arrive.)

In contrast, Luke makes the appearance of the shepherds appear much more immediate:

Luk 2:10-16 ESV And the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. (11) For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. (12) And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger." (13) And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, (14) "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!" (15) When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us." (16) And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger.

Note that the angel tells the shepherd that the Christ had been born this day. When the arrived, the child was still in the manger. Based on scripture then, the traditional image of the shepherds and wise men both being present at the same time in the stable is hard to understand.

The Archbishop went on to dispel other details of the Christmas story, adding that there were probably no asses or oxen in the stable.

It is difficult to understand how he could possibly know this. Nor can I understand why he thought it all relevant.

He argued that Christmas cards which showed the Virgin Mary cradling the baby Jesus, flanked by shepherds and wise men, were misleading.

As you probably would guess, I have no quarrel with this position.

As for the scenes that depicted snow falling in Bethlehem, the Archbishop said the chance of this was "very unlikely".

He's probably right, but again, how is this relevant?

In a final blow to the traditional nativity story, Dr Williams concluded that Jesus was probably not born in December at all. He said: "Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival."

There is no real clue in scripture regarding the time of year Christ was born. (Unlike his death which is fairly easy to pin down due to the proximity to passover.) Based on my understanding of the development of the holiday, this is probably accurate.

Would you know from the article that this was not unprompted? In fact, the reporter asked him to comment on a traditional Christmas card and say which elements are crucial to Christian faith. This fact makes the remarks that seemed irrelevant on first read make more sense. In fact, he did not actually comment on what kinds of animals were present. Instead, he said it wasn't relevant.

He does say that the shepherds and wise men don't appear together in scripture, but does not explain why. Then, of course, they left out this bit:

SM So if we're pulling back even further then, is there a star above the place where the child is?

ABC Don't know; I mean Matthew talks about the star rising, about the star standing still; we know stars don't behave quite like that, that the wise men should have seen something which triggered a recognition of something significant was going on; some constellation, there are various scientific theories about what it might have been at around that time and they followed that trek; that makes sense to me.

Ah yes, Matthew must have been mistaken because we "know" things don't work that way. Of course, as Christians, we believe all sorts of things happened that we "know" don't work like that. Little things like, I don't know, the people rising from the dead.

On balance, the Archbishop still comes out looking rather bad. Specifically referring to the nativity as a legend rather than stating that legendary items have crept into the "traditional" view definitely gives the wrong impression.

On the other hand, the Telegraph's characterization of the interview, relying heavily on paraphrase and out-of-context quotes doesn't make them look so good either.

Monday, November 26, 2007

That was years ago on Blogger. I used Cite Bite to link it because the old blogger archiving (surprise) doesn't seem to be working very well. I make no claims about the validity of any of the links in this relic, but overall I think the reasoning holds up well.

Update, the Citebite version seems to be having trouble with punctuation. I'll just copy and paste it here. Enjoy.

Wednesday, May 08, 2002

Lileks had an interesting “Bleat” about comic books a few days back. Specifically, Spider-
man and Thor. I mention this because he raises an interesting
question. One that’s important to answer. The reason I think this is
important is NOT because I think his hypothetical question likely, but
because the issue he raises is one that has far reaching implications
for a Christian’s faith. The question he raises is, what if, just like
in the comic books, we suddenly found out that Thor was real?
Specifically, what would that do to people’s faith?

He thinks he knows:

If Thor, God of Thunder, was indeed flying around
Manhattan on a daily basis, what would this do to organized religions?
Here’s a living incarnation of an ancient creed. Flying around. In
broad daylight. Imagine the anguish: we’re all waiting for an
incarnation to appear, and it’s THAT religion? Like, the God of SWEDEN?
I would suggest that this would cause a meltdown in Western society,
especially once Thor’s interviewed on TV.

Later he adds:

Legalisms aside, at some point we’d have to confront
Thor’s manifest divinity:“I’m one of many gods, and we live up there,
in the sky. Our leader is Odin, who’s your typical big fellow with a
white beard. We’re the only gods up there, as far as I know.” People
would come out of church, see Thor flying across the sky (with a
hammer! A stupid HAMMER!) and feel this horrible pang of doubt.

Let’s break this down a bit. Is Lileks right? Would people’s
faith be shattered if we suddenly met Thor (or some other mythical god)
in the flesh? I’m afraid he’s right. Most people’s faith would shatter.

Now why do I think this is important to examine? Because
people’s faith would be shattered for no good reason. Further, people’s
faith is shattered all the time by things no where near as profound as
the appearance of Thor.

Some of you are probably surprised. Do I seriously believe
that the sudden appearance of a god out of myth has no affect on our
faith? Let me be perfectly clear. This event would certainly change our
world view. Among other things, it would blow away one of my arguments
about what makes Christianity so important. (That being that while its
central story may resemble some myths, Christianity points to a place
and time and says the myth became fact at that point in history.) But,
that argument is NOT Christianity, nor is it biblical, or actually
important in the grand scheme of the Christian’s walk with Christ.

I certainly concede that Thor’s appearance would change our
world view. (Not just the Christian’s either. It would be a big shock
to atheists and agnostics as well.) I do contend, though, that whether
or not Thor is real has no bearing on whether or not Christianity is
true. Let’s think about this. The only way the truth of one fact
statement is evidence of the falseness of another is if those two
statements are mutually exclusive. The statements, “Thor is real,” and,
“Yahweh is real,” are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, even if Lileks’s
hypothetical statement by Thor really happened, “I’m one of many gods,
and we live up there, in the sky. Our leader is Odin, who’s your
typical big fellow with a white beard. We’re the only gods up there, as
far as I know,” it still would not be antithetical to Christianity.

Someone may say, but doesn’t the Bible say there is only one God?
And in fact, it does. Several times. But now its important to
understand what we mean by the word "god." I would suggest that
historically the word has often been used to describe someone with a
great deal more power or ability than you yourself have. This would
explain why, for example, men like Caesar Augustus
could be worshipped as gods. The point of this is that while the same
kind of language was used by pagans to describe beings they believed to
be greater than themselves as we use to describe the one Being greater
than all does not mean that the words mean the same things in these
different contexts.

The Bible's description of Yahweh is of a one of a kind
Being. If Thor existed for real, the fact that some people have
considered him to be a god would not disprove Christianity. My faith is
not based on word games. My faith is based on having found the New
Testament account to be a reliable source of information and moving on
to see that it describes Jesus being raised from the dead. The rest of
my faith is built on that cornerstone. The existence of Thor or any
other mythical character being proved to be real would not contradict
the evidence of the resurrection. (As mentioned above, great men have
often been worshipped as gods. The existence of Alexander or Augustus
does not shake our faith. The only difference I see is that Thor would
have more intrinsic power and actually be among us. His power would not
be as great as that claimed for Yahweh, so that should have no effect.
His being here in the flesh doesn't put him at a rational advantage of
Augustus because very few people doubt Augustus's existence.) Nor
should we be disturbed by Thor's statement that there was nobody else
up there in the sky with him. (While we talk about Heaven being above,
we know that to be a metaphor to describe that which we cannot
otherwise explain.)

I can see no reason why the existence of Thor would have
more effect on men's faith then the existence of Superman. But I don't
think anyone would seriously argue that the existence of Superman would
disprove the existence of God. (Nor would be likely to change our minds
if we found out some primitive tribe called Superman a god.) I do think
that many people would lose their Christian faith, however, if Thor
were found to be real. I think that the reason why boils down to two
things. The first is that many people don't really know what the Bible
teaches and would simply assume, without thinking too much at all, that
the Bible had been contradicted.

The second is dangerous to the serious believer. All of us
sometimes waiver in our faith for no good reason. I don't think many
people are rationally argued out of Christianity. For the most part,
faith seems to be lost for emotional reasons that have nothing to do
with the actual evidence. That is why faith is considered to be a
virtue. It is often easier to stand up to intellectual criticism, which
we can respond to rationally, then it is to deal with emotional shocks
which rattle us and cause our capacity for rational thought to abandon
us.

It is certainly true that things will come along which will
force us to back up and reexamine the evidence. When new information
comes to light, that is exactly what we should do. But if the new
information doesn’t shed any actual light on the situation, rationally,
our beliefs should not change. That’s really what faith is. Keeping on
believing when you’ve gotten a nasty shock, but nothing has really
changed to alter the basic facts of your beliefs.

As bizarre as it would be, suddenly seeing Thor in the
flesh would be just such a shock. But if it happened as Lileks
described, it wouldn’t be something that could shake the faith of those
who understand the reasons for their faith. And if a jolt like that can’t knock us down, the everyday stuff should be easy.

P.S. to comic book fans. As far as I know, Lileks complaint
that this issue was never discussed in relation to Thor is correct.
However, changing comic book company's D.C. did briefly address this
issue in Justice League of America #183 where the Earth 2 Wonderwoman
declares that she believes in no gods besides the gods of Mount Olympus
and "the only true 'God' whose nature remains unknown." Granted, that
neat little sidestep probably wouldn't satisfy Lileks anyway. posted by jeffrey at 11:13 PM

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

I've not been keeping up on the "blasphemy challenge" and I don't frequent the blogs David talks about, but his discussion of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is worth mentioning.

I used to believe that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was simply the sin of unbelief. That fit in a nice box—those who don't believe are lost, those who do are not, ergo…

I don't think that anymore. Go to all three accounts (Mark 3, Luke 12, Matthew 12) of Jesus' warning of the unpardonable sin and substitute "don't believe" for "blaspheme the Holy Spirit" and you'll see what I mean—you get a bizarre, out of context injection of the obvious.

I believe there is a sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit that is distinct from the sin of unbelief—it is a denial so heinous that scripture uses hyperbole and a suggestion of even greater punishment in eternity.

In the actual accounts, we see that Jesus is responding to a specific incident. Something the teachers of the law did--not just their unbelief (they may actually have believed, in a certain sense) but a real, concrete act that they committed.

The sin, at least as committed by the Pharisees, is not "just" to deny a direct revelation of God's power but to attribute it to the devil. And not out of ignorance, but willfully. The teachers knew (and Jesus reminded them of the logic) that Satan does not cast out demons. They witnessed Jesus casting out demons. They did not deny that Jesus performed a supernatural act, they acknowledged it. Yet, in spite of their training, they attributed this supernatural act of righteousness to Satan.

I'm not sure I know why David talks about the need for a direct revelation of God's power and he doesn't elaborate. That's not a part of this formulation that I've seen before and I'm not sure I agree. David doesn't fully elaborate, but he seems to be saying that you can't commit this sin without directly witnessing a miraculous act.

While I'm not at all sure that I agree that a direct observation of a miraculous act is necessary, I think David's correct that it seems pretty clear from context that the sin Jesus was referring to was the willful attribution of God's power to Satan.

Having not seen any of the videos, I can't comment on what the kids involved were actually doing, I don't believe I've ever witnessed anyone do anything that would rise to the level of what the Pharisees did when Jesus accused them of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

The dominant culture is insistent that sexual freedom be glorified, and
anything that hints at moral disapproval of sleeping with whomever
whenever one gets the urge must be quashed.

That people sinned
in the past is no shocking news. From a health standpoint the fact that
people have been involved in pre-marital sex has no bearing on the very
real dangers. From a spiritual standpoint the fact that people have and
do sin has no bearing on the fact that it's still wrong.

Friday, August 18, 2006

My certitude is admittedly personal. I believe I have justification
and warrant for my beliefs and that if pressed, I could attempt to
provide proof and evidence for these claims. The level of “proof” I
could give, though, would not provide the same level of certitude that
I have. Proof is rather limited in that regard. I couldn’t prove that
Joe Carter exists much less that prove that he likes the color blue,
that he had a crush on Christie Cozart in the 7th grade, or that he
hates referring to himself in the third person.

While I can’t prove those things beyond a shadow of a doubt, I don’t
doubt them at all. Similarly, my certainty in my faith isn’t based on
what I can prove to other people or even, for that matter, what I can
prove to myself.

[...]

Yet while I recognize that theological certainty does not make me a
special brand of saint, it also doesn’t make me some perverse freak of
faith. I shouldn’t feel a need to hang my head in shame because I don’t
question the existence of God. I shouldn’t be asked to dismiss the
experiences I’ve had with the Lord as if there is a possibility that
they are not real. I shouldn’t have to lie and say that “I understand”
when people say that are not sure that there is life after death.

I also don’t expect you to be ashamed if you feel differently. I
won’t dismiss your questions or your hesitations. I won’t ask you to
say you understand my faith if you don’t. I’ll respect your doubts and
in return all I ask is that you be merciful to those of us who are
certain.

Maybe it's just me, but this post helped me put some thoughts in a whole new light.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

I couldn't help but notice Joe Carter's list of dangerous fads (that unfortunately became fixtures) among Evangelicals. We in the churches of Christ are not generally considered Evangelicals, but I can definitely relate with a lot of this so I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.

#1 The Sinner’s Prayer – The gates of hell have a special
entrance reserved for people who thought that they had a “ticket to
heaven” because someone told them all they needed to do was recite the
“sinner’s prayer.” Salvation, however, is not obtained by reciting a
magical incantation as many, many, “Christians” will discover after
it's far, far, too late.

I wouldn't be surprised if Joe gets a lot of grief on this one. (He didn't wait to go after the sacred cows, did he?) I can't disagree with him on this though. There are quite a lot of passages in scripture about salvation. However, the "Sinner's Prayer" isn't mentioned in any of them. Why can we not stick with the Biblical plan?

#2 The Altar Call – In the 1820’s evangelist Charles Finney
introduced the “anxious seat,” a front pew left vacant where at the end
of the meeting “the anxious may come and be addressed particularly…and
sometimes be conversed with individually.” At the end of his sermon, he
would say, “There is the anxious seat; come out, and avow determination
to be on the Lord’s side.”

Joe explains that the problem with this is that it seems to put the evangelist in the place of the Holy Spirit. (In that it seems to imply that people can come to the faith by sheer force of the evangelist's will.)

I can't entirely commiserate with him on this one. I'm not familiar with an "anxious seat" per se. However, we generally have what we call the "Invitation." This is a time set aside not only for the non-believer to confess their faith and be baptized, but for the believer to ask for prayers.

While I realize this probably isn't exactly what Joe was referring to, my experience leads me to believe that he may be overstating the case here. I would certainly agree that the presumption that an evangelist can simply tell people to have faith and suddenly they will have it is quite absurd. On the other hand, I have seen many occassions when a strong lesson, or series of lessons, can provide the tipping point in one's journey to faith. Shouldn't we provide such people an opportunity to make that faith manifest?

On the other hand, I've seen my share of evangelists who seem to think that it is their duty in life to convert every non-believer in the room on the strength of a single sermon. 1With these men I was uncomfortable with a lot more than just the invitation.

#3 “Do you know Jesus as…” -- In the fall of 1987 I began my
freshman year of college. I was far from home, overwhelmed and lonely
on a campus of 20,000 students. While sitting alone in the cafeteria
one afternoon, an older student walked up, smiled and asked if he could
join me. I was starved for conversation and thrilled to have the
company. He sat his tray down in front of mine and took a seat as I
prepared to engage him in a heady discussion of his choosing. Politics,
philosophy, science. I was mentally preparing for anything he threw at
me.

Glancing up from his plate of spaghetti, he asked, “Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?”

For a few seconds I was stunned, completely at a loss for a response. “Um, yeah, actually I have.” I finally managed in reply.

“Oh,” he said, visibly disappointed. “Okay, that’s good.” He wore a
look of minor defeat. He had chosen the wrong table; no soul would be
won for Christ over this lunch. We chatted politely while I finished my
burger. He ate quickly and excused himself. After that lunch, I never
saw him again.

I think Joe's right on this one as well; If you have to ask this question, you probably don't know the person well enough to be trying to convert them. In this case I'm afraid that the fact that this method does generate some success is the reason it is so popular. Unfortunately, it fails to take into account the differences of personality; while some people are most gratified to be approached as Joe describes, there are a great many who could be turned off, maybe permanently, by this approach.

#4 Tribulationism -- Ask a non-believer to give a rudimentary
explanation of “the Rapture” and chances are they can provide a fairly
accurate description of that concept. Ask the same person to give a
basic explanation of the Gospel message, though, and they are likely to
be stumped ... I’m sure that
somewhere in the three dozen novels that comprise the Left Behind
series the Gospel message is presented. But there is something horribly
wrong when the greatest story ever told is buried beneath a third-rate
tale of the apocalypse.

"Nuff said.

In fact, I don't have much to disagree or expand on the rest of Joe's points so I'll let them stand.

I think the crux of what Joe is saying here is that a) we do better to stick to the Biblical example than to keep reinventing the wheel and b) if we want to bring people to Christ, we should spend more time living the life of Christ and less time chasing the newest ideas. (My apologies in advance if I got this wrong.) I can't say I disagree with any of that.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Some people like to think that mankind is "getting better all the time." As a Christian I believe that one of the fundamental truths of the human race is that we are a fallen race. That is to say that we fall short of the absolute moral and ethical norms that we ourselves believe to be right and good, and that we always will.

Five children have been arrested over the attempted murder of a
five-year-old boy who suffered "horrific injuries" after apparently
being tied around the neck with a rope and beaten.

Police are searching for another two or three youngsters in connection with the attack in woodland in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

A senior detective said the victim had "marks around his neck that
could be consistent with ligature marks" and "the injuries look quite
horrific". He also had bruises over his body. The boy was found at
around 6pm on Tuesday wandering close to his home in the Chickenley
area of Dewsbury.

Police arrested four local children - two girls aged 11 and 12, and
two boys aged 11 and 12 - several hours after the boy was discovered,
and a fifth, a 12-year-old boy, yesterday.

The details of this attack are truly horrific. That they could be perpetrated by those so young is almost beyond belief. Almost. Unfortunately, I do believe it. I'm afraid it will keep going on like this until the end.

Sunday, March 06, 2005

I have a headache this morning, probably due to sleep deprivation, so I didn't go to service this morning. Instead, I'm studying at home. I was reading Polycarp's letter to the church at Phillipi and came across this passage:

For if a
man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he enjoin them on
others? If a man does not keep himself from covetousness,he shall be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the heathen.

Polycarp is not alone in linking covetnous with idolatry; Paul does the same thing in scripture:

(Col 3;5, ESV) Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

At first blush, comparing covetnous and idolatry sounds strange. What do these sins have in common?

And covetousness, which is idolatry;
that is, an inordinate love of present good and outward enjoyments,
which proceeds from too high a value in the mind, puts upon too eager a
pursuit, hinders the proper use and enjoyment of them, and creates
anxious fear and immoderate sorrow for the loss of them. Observe,
Covetousness is spiritual idolatry: it is the giving of that love and
regard to worldly wealth which are due to God only, and carries a
greater degree of malignity in it, and is more highly provoking to God,
than is commonly thought. And it is very observable that among all the
instances of sin which good men are recorded in the scripture to have
fallen into (and there is scarcely any but some or other, in one or
other part of their life, have fallen into) there is no instance in all
the scripture of any good man charged with covetousness.

Similarly, Albert Barnes said:

It is remarkable that the apostle always ranks covetousness with these base and detestable passions. The meaning here is:(1) that it is a low and debasing passion, like those which he had specified; and,(2) that it secures the affections which properly belong to God, and is, therefore, idolatry. Of all base passions, this is the one that most dethrones God from the soul.

Both of these scholars agree that covetnous and idolatry are linked because both take the passion that we are to have for the I AM alone and direct it toward something much lower. When you look at it this way, you can see that any type of passion, when taken to the degree of obsession, could transform itself into a similar type of sin. This could happen even with types of passion that are normally considered good, or even would normally be considered blessed by God.

The Bible is quite clear that God intends man and woman to be together. We're told that they, "shall become one flesh." For a couple to leave behind their old identities to become a single unit requires a great deal of effort and passion. This is clearly what the Lord intended. But what would happen if the husband or the wife's (or even just a boyfriend or girlfriend) became so passionate about their match that it began to distort their sense of reality and began to govern, rather than just drive, their relationship both with the other as well as with the world and, most importantly, God? At that point, the positive good of oneness could become a type of idol.

This should not, of course, surprise us. C.S. Lewis said, I can't remember where, that evil has nothing of it's own. Satan is not his own type of being. He is merely a perversion of the servants of YHWY. Similarly, the sins which he tries to trap us with are not their own type of behaviors and attitudes; they are merely perversions of good acts and passions.

Lust is nothing but a perversion of love and the act of sex. Both of these were created by God and are considered positive good in the context that God intended. Likewise, sloth is merely a perversion of rest, which were told that even God has done.

We must, of course, guard ourselves against all types of idolatry. We must not allow any passion to exceed the love and devotion due our Creator. If we do, we have taken the first step, however unintentional, toward open rebellion against the Father. And that, of course, is the essence of sin.

Sunday, October 17, 2004

There's been some stuff going on in my life lately that has had me obsessing about how it affects me. The thing is though, that none of it really affects me directly. However, there are people I care about a great deal who could probably use my prayers.

Jesus said:Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends.

Lay down my life for my friends? Some times I find it hard enough just to pull my self out of my own selfish needs and desires long enough to realize my friends could use a prayer. I'd like to believe I'd be willing to give my life for a friend. Right now I have no confidence in my ability to notice they were even in trouble.

Lord please teach me how to put more emphasis on those around me and less, much less, emphasis on myself.

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Basically Joe concludes that any belief system that involves a belief in spiritual beings, regardless of what type of beings are at issue, is a religion. I'm really not in the mood to think about this too much. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but at least I understand his position now.

Simply put, Strayhorn is wrong. In order to prevent abuse of the system, government needs a means of determing what constitutes a legitimate religion. Strayhorn’s "God, gods or supreme being" test, however, is too stringent and stacks the deck in favor of theistic religions.

In the comments he elaborates:

While that is true, the government still has a responsibility to apply the standard fairly. If the government is going to decide that religous organizations are tax-exempt then they shouldn't exclude religions that are clearly "real religions" just because they don't fit into a theistic paradigm.

Joe's discussion is in the context of civil liberties. He believes that the Universalists are being discriminated against on a religious basis. He goes on to say that Christians should stand up for them or we can have no expectation that others will stand up for us.

While I agree with Joe's general point about defending others rights, I think he's put the cart before the horse. Joe states that it's clear that Universalism is a "real religion" but he doesn't explain how he came to this conclusion.

And I've got to say that I'm not at all convinced of his point either. Granted, I've not studied the Universalist church in detail, but I've got to say that in conversations with former Universalists I've always gotten the impression that the Universalists are more like a philosophical society than a religion. (And a society that's not all that keen on actually finding answers to their questions at that.) What exactly about Universalism make it a relgion?

Now let me be clear: I'm not saying that Universalism isn't a relgion. For me this a matter of first impression. I've simply never considered this question before. However, as I look at the issue, I find I'm not convinced of Joe's position. I think we can all agree that belief in a deity is prima facia evidence of the presence of religious beliefs. (But not always evidence of an organized religion.)

Does it follow, however, that the absence of a requirement to believe in a deity is evidence that a religion does not exist? I'm uncertain on this issue; however i must say that my gut feeling on the issue is to say yes.

So, here's my question: If you don't have to believe in a deity to be a religion, what, if anything, do you have to believe in?

Tuesday, May 04, 2004

Donald Sensing calls a motion at the Southern Baptist Convention to bail out of all public schools "pharisaism."

I don't really understand the basis of that charge. To me, pharisaism is an inability to see the meaning of God's word because you're too hung up on the form. I really don't see that here.

However, this does seem to be taking things too far. How are we to be an influence on the world, if we totally withdraw from it?

Don't get me wrong, I spent 7 years in a Christian school and it was a wonderful experience overall. However the idea that withdrawal from public schools is the right decision for all Christians in all places seems absurd. I've never understood people's inability to take this issue on a case by case basis.

For a look at how truly hurtful these tendencies sometimes become, check out this June 19th, 2002 post by David Heddle. (If the link doesn't take you straight to the post, just scroll down.)

Monday, May 03, 2004

And above all these things, put on love, which the bond of unity that has been brought to the goal. And let the peace of Messiah rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Messiah dwell in you richly, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing each other, in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to God. And all you do in word of work, do all in the name of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, giving thanks to Him through God the Father.

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered against them. Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord.
Fathers, do not stir up your children, lest they become disheartened. Slaves, in all things obey those who are your lords according to the flesh, not in eye-service as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord rather than men; knowing that from the Lord you will receive as due the recompense of the inheritance. It is the Lord Messiah Whom you serve. For he who acts wrongly will bear what he did wrongly, and that without respect of persons.

I'm afraid that this passage, like the similar passage in Ephesians gets too much attention for the wrong reasons. This is largely because people choose to focus on Pauls instructions to wives to the exclusion of all else. As a reslt, people fail to see that Paul's primary concern isn't with behavior, but with motivation. This is easily understood when you see that for Paul actions flow from motivation. Hence, he first gives general instructions about why Christians should do things and only then addresses specific items of behavior.

It is quite clear, I think, that Paul's primary focus in this passage is that of love. He makes it clear that Christians should love each other and, more importantly, love God. Then, he goes on to say that if you do love God and each other, that you will behave in certain ways. Yes, wive are to submit to their husbands, but husbands are to treat their wives in such a way that such submission should never cause a problem. Children and slaves are also instructed, in their own ways, to be obedient. But fathers and masters are instructed to act kindly.

In Christian relationships, where everyone is fulfilling their obligations, the types of submission Paul discusses would not be a burden. Of course we all know that not every one fulfills their obligations. However, the failure of one party does not release us from our duties. Our social contract is not with each other, but with the Father.

Monday, April 05, 2004

I must confess that I cannot adequately refute his points since his reading of the Gospels is so unique and, from my perspective, bizarre. The fact that he is able to completely misconstrue the Gospels is downright embarrassing. The burden of shame, however, does not fall on this bright young Oxford scholar but on us Christians. We should be explaining the Gospel message in such a way that even a child could understand, yet we have intelligent Rhodes scholars who are completely missing the point of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Perhaps this should cause us to reflect upon our own effectiveness. What good will it do us if we can parse the intricacies of minor doctrinal issues when we are completely failing to share the Good News?

Joe's quite right here. It is not the fault of those outside the Church that they don't understand the Gospel message. It's the fault of Christians. As Paul said:

(Romans 10:14-15 ESV) But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”

If we haven't taught someone the Good News, they can't be expected to know it. It's true that some people are capable of finding the truth completely on their own, but we shouldn't expect that to be the rule.

While I'm at it, I'd like to point something out in a later Adnesnik post:

While I greatly appreciate the spirit in which PJ's comments were written, I'm afriad that I must disagree vigorously with their substance. Regardless of what Christians believe about the compatibility of Christianity and Judaism, it is extremely hard for even the most moderate and progressive Jews to believe that the two religions are "entirely consistent" or even mostly consistent. The idea that "Jews would benefit by acceping [the] fuller truth" of Christianity is simply anathema regardless of the generous spirit in which Christian teachings are offered.

To this, I'd simply like to point out that it's obvious that not all Jews agree with David's position. There are quite a lot of Messianic Jews out there. As I understand it, Messianic Jews cling to all the practices of Judaism, but they accept what we call the New Testament as scripture and, more importantly, accept Jesus (or Yeshua if you prefer) as the Messiah. Now I don't know how close to modern Judaism their practices are, or whether David would accept their practice of Judaism as consistent with what he knows. I do know that from my studies, I find their teachings about Jesus and redemption to track very closely with my understanding. It therefore seems to me that one can, indeed, do both.

And this is exactly what I would expect to find in a Jew who believes Jesus is the prophesied Messiah. As I said before, Christianity is not meant to be a replacement, per se, of Judaism. Rather, it is the natural extension of Judaism if one accepts that Yeshua is, indeed, the promised Messiah.

Update: I'd also like to echo Joe's comments about anti-semetic versus anti-Judaic. Even if you accept David's premise entirely, he has not made the case that the Gospels are anti-semetic (that they oppose Jews as a race). Rather, his actual case is that they are anti-Judaic (against Judaism as a religion). I don't accept David's arguments, so I would reject the conclusion that the Gospels are anti-Judaic as well, but I do think it's a rather important difference.

Sunday, April 04, 2004

Gen 2:18-24 (ESV) Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

"It is not good that man should be alone." Those words spoken by the Creator are incredibly insightful. Leaving aside the biological point that man could not exist without woman, I find it evident that man would be incomplete without woman. And while it's true that life would be simpler without women (OK, a LOT simpler), it wouldn't really be life, now would it? So, every man should thank God that He had the wisdom to create woman.

Patrick Belton is concerned about the results of this poll which shows a rise in the number of people who believe that "that Jews were responsible for Christ's death." The poll also shows a correllation between people who hold that belief and those whove seen Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

That these views are correlated with having seen Mel Gibson's "Passion" movie is borne out by the survey - particularly, again, among the troubling "young anti-semite" demographic: of those 18-34 year olds who have seen the film, 42 percent believe Jews were responsible for Christ's death, compared with 36 percent of 35-59 year olds who watched the movie. And for respondents 60 years and up, there was hardly any difference between the responses of people who had seen the film and those who hadn't.

We should be careful what kind of views we impart to the youngest generation - they'll be with us for quite some time.

Honestly, I've never understood why people get so antsy when they find out that people believe that their were Jews who were complicit in the death of Jesus. Every historical record that I'm aware of bears this fact out. Some Jews, specifically some priests and members of the Sanheidren, were the driving force behind his crufixion. This is an objective fact and I can't understand why people are afraid of it. In fact, what I find bizarre is that only a quarter of those surveyed held this view.

What people should worry about is that some people believe that the death of Christ represents some sort of corporate sin on the part of the Jewish race and that as a result Jews living today bear the guilt of this sin. That is worrisome indeed because this belief has often been either the cause, or the excuse, for a great deal of the violence that has been carried out against the Jewish people over the centuries.

If this poll showed that, because of the film or for other reasons, the number of people who held this view was rising, I'd be very concerned. However, it doesn't appear to show anything of the sort. In fact, the story Belton links to says:

Despite the increasing belief among some groups that the Jews were responsible for Christ's death, other surveys have shown that only a tiny minority believes that Jews today should bear responsibility for what happened to Christ 2000 years ago. An ABC News/PrimeTime poll, released Feb. 15, found that just 8% think that "all Jews today" bear responsibility for the death of Jesus, compared with 80% who reject that view.

While we're not given specific numbers about trends on this question, we are told that the number doesn't appear to be rising. As I said, I believe this is the critical issue, and on this issue opinions don't appear to be changing. Given that fact, I really don't see the cause for alarm.

While I'm at it though, I'd like to point out that the 8% who do hold this absurd corporate guilt view are INSANE. Maybe not literally, but they are holding a very irrational view. There simply is no support for the view that the Jewish people hold some special sort of corporate guilt for the death of Christ.

What is true is that EVERY human being, whether they admit it or not, bears a personal responsibility for the death of Christ. After all, we have all sinned and it was that sin that made the crucifixion necessary. So, if there's anyone out there who feels the need to find someone to take out they're rath over the cruxifixion on, stop blaming "the Jews" and look in the mirror.

While I am no expert on the Gospels, my reading of the text suggests that placing collective blame on the Jewish people for the death of Christ is an integral aspect of the Gospels' theological agenda. The Jews' responsibility for the death of Christ is one demonstration among several that they are no longer the Chosen People and that their religion is no longer relevant.

I have no idea what basis David uses to come to this conclusion. There is nothing in the Gospels that assigns collective guilt in the way David describes it to the Jews or anyone else. And Christianity, by it's nature, is not a new religion, but the natural and foretold extension of Judaism. Further, it is not accurate to say that the Bible teaches that the Jews have been replaced as God's Chosen People.

Rather, as Paul taught the tree is unchanged, but those Jews who refused to accept Christ would be pruned and those gentiles who did accept him would be grafted in. This is a very different concept. I realize that some people don't recognize the distinction, but it's there, and it's very important.

I put this under theology cause I really don't know where else to put it. I'm reading Genesis, and I just got to chapter 16.

Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. She had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said to Abram, “Behold now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.” And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife. And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress. And Sarai said to Abram, “May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my servant to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the Lord judge between you and me!”

This passage just reminds me tht while Abraham was a great man of God, his understanding of women was as bad as that of most of us men. I mean, who, looking at this from a distance, wouldn't be able to tell that this was a REALLY bad idea? But, right there in the moment, Abraham was apparently unable to see the fatal flaw in this plan.

I don't know, maybe he made the mistake that we men often make: that just because something was the woman's idea, that will somehow absolve us of blame if everything goes wrong.

Regardless, this was a really stupid decision representing a total and complete misunderstanding of women on Abraham's part. And for some reason, the fact that one of the greatest men who ever lived didn't understand women any better than I do provides some sort of comfort.

Thursday, April 01, 2004

I always thought the 9th Circuit's decision in the Pledge of Allegiance case was, well, silly. I suspect that the Supremes will uphold the Pledge. (I doubt that they'll actually address the particulars of the case. This case is political dynamite and there appears to be an easy out: Newdow may lack standing. If you follow the link, you'll see that not everyone agrees with me, but my own observation is that many in the court dislike being at the center of controversy. It's true that some day the Supremes will probably have to make a decision, but I'm guessing several of the would rather it not be now. That, and I believe that Newdow genuinely does lack standing.)

Instead, the god of the Pledge is the god of the civil religion that grew up out of Rouseau and the enlightenment. As Joe says:

Our God is a jealous God and is unlikely to look favorably upon idolatry even when it is put to good service. While we should be as tolerant of “civil religion” as we are of other beliefs, we can’t justify submitting to it ourselves. That is not to say that we can’t say the Pledge and think of the one true God. But we should keep in mind that this fight isn’t our fight and the “god” of America’ [sic] civil religion is not the God who died on the Cross.

Just so. We have to defend our faith at all times. But defending the Pledge has nothing to do with defending the faith.

Monday, March 29, 2004

I have yet to see The Passion of the Christ, but Susanna's description pretty much matches my expectations. I certainly can't argue with this:

But one consequence of growing up studying the Bible, of talking about Christ’s death, of hearing the terms “scourging”, “mocking”, and “beaten” repeated over and over in the cool brightness of a comfortable church auditorium, is that the true horror of what Jesus Christ suffered as a man in the process of dying is lost. It becomes iconic, distant. We hear the words, we eat the communion bread, drink the communion grape juice, sing a sad song, pray, chat with our fellow congregants, then head off to Taco Bell or Wal-Mart. Those things aren’t bad, but a deep connection we need is too easily missed. That’s where The Passion of the Christ comes in.

I think Susanna makes a good point. For people who grew up in an established church and have been hearing the events of the crucifixion all their lives, the words often lose their meaning. I preached a sermon last December (Well, I preached part of it. The sermon was actually in 4 parts and I did 2.) At one point I described, in detail, just what exactly crucifixion means. I can't tell you how many people told me later that they'd never really thought about it like that.

Well, folks, we need to think about it like that. We need to understand just exactly what we did to the Son of God. We have to understand the sacrifice. If we don't, it's very hard to come to repentance. If we understand what He went through, then (at least to me) it's easier to turn from our sins. Especially if we ask ourselves, "Can he still feel the nails?"

In a post about the Lutheran church's problems with ministers and other employees who don't believe church doctrine, Alan Cornett makes a very good point:

It always puzzled me why someone who believes in the resurrection would ever have a problem with the virgin birth or miracles. If God can bring someone back from the dead then surely He could provide for a virgin birth or the healing of the sick. And the same source I go to to learn about the resurrection tells me about the virgin birth and the other miracles.

Yeah, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. The resurrection of Christ is by far the most incredible claim made in all of scripture. Yet a lot people claim to believe in the Resurrection, but discount other incredible events. I actually had a conversation with a man in his 70s who was a life long (as I understand it) Christian who spent a lot of his time helping others. We were talking about a Biblical miracle and he was insisting that it couldn't have happened. He finally looked right at me and said, I just can't believe that, it's ridiculous.

I was so flabbergasted I didn't know what to say. To this day, it floors me that he could accept the resurrection, but reject so much else that's in scripture. Especially since, for me, the resurrection is what seals my faith in everything else. I believe there to be ample evidence that, as absurd as it sounds, Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Because I believe that, I can believe all the rest.

Friday, March 26, 2004

This may strike some people as rather obvious and others as quite absurd. But any Christian who takes the Bible seriously must either concede that point or suffer from a self-imposed cognitive dissonance. Believing that Christ is the Son of God requires accepting that he is the same Being as the “Old Testament God.” You can’t point to Jesus as evidence to deny the warlike characteristics of God without doing violence to the doctrine of the Trinity.

We attempt to exclude God's warlike attributes by focusing on other more "gentle" traits. But that leaves us with the question of which is the "real God." Is God a God of “justice” or is He a God of “mercy?“ He is, of course, both. Justice and Mercy, and Love and all the other attributes of God are one because God is one. We cannot pick and choose our favorites among these attributes. We must accept God as He is and accept that He appears to have a “warlike” nature it is precisely because of these very characteristics. Keeping this in mind will also help us gain a better understanding of the nature of war.

You should read the whole thing, but I'm particularly interested in Joe's comments about accepting God complete and whole. Far too often I've heard the phrase, "I can't believe in a god that ..." Sorry folks, it doesn't work that way. YWHY, the God of the Bible, is who HE is.

You don't get to take only the attributes of God you like. God isn't a buffet table where you get to pick and choose. God's more like the 72 oz. steak at The Big Texan. Either you eat the whole thing, or you're going to have to pay.

Monday, February 16, 2004

I posted a comment taking quite the opposite position. Instead of getting the state out of then wedding business, I would rather see the church get out of the wedding business.

This is heresy, of course, not in the sense of violating theological-doctrinal standards, but in the sense of crossing a deeply-embedded, socio-religious more. There still remains in American society a strong sense that you are "supposed" to get married in a church by a cleric, even among couples who never otherwise darken a church's door. A lot of times an engaged couple with no active religious life seek a church wedding just to make mom and dad happy, and/or because they want a traditional photo album of wedding pictures.

That, however, does not bother me. It used to, but I adopted my own personal wedding policy a few years ago: I do not marry couples not under my pastoral care. I am not a wedding mercenary. I am more than willing to talk to total strangers about officiating at their wedding, but they must become part of my flock until the wedding occurs. After that, they can do what they want. In the meantime, I give them Christian witness and pastoral care. I have found that most couples I marry under these conditions have stayed in my church after the wedding, some as members, some as participants.

If these terms are not acceptable to the couple, I offer them my prayer and best wishes. There is a very nice commercial wedding chapel five miles away and I know several county office-holders who can join them, or they can keep on shopping for another pastor and venue.

There are lots of reasons that Donald presents for this point of view, among them the feeling that a lot of weddings often feel like "sexual hypocrisy", as he calls it, because it's become fairly common for people to get married in a religious setting, even though they've already been engaged in sexual activity that their religion restricts to marriage. Further, lots of people want a religious ceremony, even though they're not actually religious. He thinks that if the legal aspects were removed from the religious ceremony churches would feel much less pressure to perform ceremonies for couples who weren't part of their "flock" as well as people they don't feel ought to be married.

I don't know that I agree with all of his specific suggestions, but I think it's not a bad idea to remove the legal aspects from the religious ceremony. (I understand that some European countries have been doing this for quite some time.) In fact, other than the fact that it's come to be expected, I actually see no reason for a religious ceremony at all.

To be more specific, I don't see any doctrinal reason for such a cermony. The traditional wedding ceremony has become so ingrained in our culture that I doubt that most Christians have even thought about the fact that while scripture has an awful lot to say about the rights and responsibilities of married couples, there is no scriptural definition of what constitutes a marriage. As far as I can tell, a couple is married, for biblical purposes, if they profess themselves to be married and society recognizes them as such. I see no biblical reason why a couple couldn't be married by just standing up in front of a crowd one day and saying, "We just wanted to let you know that we're married." (Assuming, of course, that cultural and legal norms would recognize such a marriage.)

Now that doesn't mean that there aren't lots of other reasons to have a religious style ceremony. One of those is that it gives the couple an historic marker they can look back too. It's easier for people to remember the importance of marriage if they have a fixed point in time they can look back too and say, "At time X I made promise Y." There's also lots of cultural and emotional reasons that such ceremonies may be important.

None of that changes the fact that the ceremonies we engage in today are not biblically required and that the confluence of the religious and legal aspects have caused a lot of problems. I think that Christians have developed a blind spot in regards to what is and what is not important in the realm of marriage. That blind spot has caused us to stake out some unneccessary positions in the culture wars.

Thursday, February 12, 2004

The Three Wise Men who brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to the infant Jesus may not have been particularly wise and could have been women, the Church of England has ruled.

A committee revising new short prayers, or "collects", for the Church's latest prayer book, Common Worship, said the term "magi" was a transliteration of the name of officials at the Persian court and the possibility that they were female could not be dismissed.

They dress it up by making a textual argument that supposedly Matthew really wanted to emphasize their exotic nature and that they're only trying to protect his emphasis. Matthew's intent in using a specific word is pure speculation which, in this instance, is only being used as a thin veil for their PCness.

Besides, if they really wanted to protect the original text, they could have taken time to point out that no where in scripture does it say there were three of them. That's merely an inference based on the number of gifts. It's not an unreasonable inference, but it's inference all the same. If Matthew's original intent was so important, why not include this little "correction" while they were at it?

David Heddle is defending the Protestant use of tradition. He begins by pointing out that the Protestant objectiong to Catholic use of tradition isn't the use of tradition per se. In fact:

Protestants should and in many cases do regard tradition with high esteem. In short:

Protestants do not (or should not) deny tradition.

Protestants find traditions to be valuable.

Protestants have many traditions.

And David is right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with tradition. As David says it can be extremely valuable. Tradition is the collected wisdom of all that have gone before us boiled down to its most fundamental points.

Of course, tradition can also be misleading if used incorrectly. You'll note that I said above that tradition is history's collected wisdom "boiled down to its most basic points." What I mean by that is that tradition typically (but not always) transmits the what without also transmitting the why. If we're not careful, tradition can lead us to continue following certain practices even when the reason for them has long since past.

Now, there's nothing wrong with doing something for no reason. However, it's dangerous to be doing something for no reason if you don't know that's what you're doing. That's largely so because it's extremely tempting to assume that what you're doing is right in and of itself. That belief tends to cause people to denounce those who choose not to follow tradition.

However, it only makes sense to condemn people for renouncing a particular tradition if you accept the Catholic doctrine of sacred tradition. This doctrine, in simplified terms, carries the assumption that tradition is more than the collected wisdom of those Christians who came before us. Under this view, tradition has been guided by the hand of God. It would therefore be better described, in this view, as the collected wisdom of God. 1

If you hold this view, than it would clearly make sense to bind others to tradition. If you don't hold it, then tradition is just the words of man and, while it may be valuable, it is not invaluable. In other words, if you reject the doctrine of sacred tradition, then it makes no since attempting to bind anyone else to those traditions. As David says, "The difference between Protestants and Catholics is that we do not believe that a church has the authority to bind your conscience to a tradition."

It would probably be more accurate to say that while Protestants dont believe that, we're not entirely consistent in that regard. I don't want to go into specifics here, but I have read of splits between Protestants that I suspected boiled down, at least in part, to one side being angry that the other had rejected certain traditions.

This is unfortunate for two reasons. The first is that it is simply unacceptable for people who agree that tradition isn't binding to, nevertheless, attempt to bind people to certain traditions. The second is that it opens us up to charges of hypocrisy such as David is responding too.

Of course the most frustrating thing about being called a hypocrite in these regards is that it is often true. I will point out that the inability of some Protestants to remain consistent in regards to tradition does not in any way affect the validity of their beliefs. The doctrine either stands or fails on its own irregardless of whether those who hold it are hypocrites.

Indeed all Christians are hypocrites to some degree or another. We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Each and every one of us continues to sin even though we know it to be wrong and further know that our sins caused the death of our Savior. That doesn't make the doctrines of the Death, Burial, and Resurection less true. That doesn't make the doctrines of repentence and forgiveness less true. It just means we need them more.

No Christian can afford the argument that his opponents are in error because they are hypocrites. If you advance that arguement you are going to have a lot of difficulty when you turn around and try to teach to the unbeliever.

1I'm not currently interested in debating which view is best. My focus, as one who would generally be considered "Protestant" is to discuss tradition as protestants view it. On a wholly unrelated note, I generally reject the label of protestant, as I generally reject all labels other than Christian. I am not, in fact protesting anything. The doctrines of the Church of Rome rarely appear on my radar, either to pronounce them or denounce them. It seems rather strange then to label me based on the protests lodged several hundred years ago.

Sunday, February 08, 2004

I've been asked to fill in teaching one of our congregation's bible studies for college students next week. The scheduled topic is the responsibility of members of the church to help each other mature. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to approach this?

Monday, February 02, 2004

Heresy is better than schism, the Episcopal bishop of Virginia said yesterday in a speech that gently chided church conservatives for imperiling the unity of the country's largest diocese over the consecration of the denomination's first homosexual bishop last November.

"If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy," said the Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee to 500 Episcopalians meeting for the annual diocesan council at the Hyatt Regency in Reston.

"For as a heretic, you are only guilty of a wrong opinion," Bishop Lee said, quoting Presbyterian scholar James McCord. "As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time."

This is just astounding. A supposedly Christian leader urging his followers to choose heresy because if they insist on following scripture they'll be responsible for dividing the body of Christ!

Where do you begin?

Let's do this for starters: By definition heretics have removed themselves from the body. If anyone is responsible for a schism, it's the heretic. The idea that the person who points this out bears the responsibility for the division is just absurd.

I also noticed this later on in the article:

Our faith teaches that people with who we differ often have important truths to teach us.

I'll grant that people who differ with us often have something to teach us. What I want to know is where this idea makes its appearance in Christian teaching? Just where is this written?

I saw at one point that Christopher Johnson said he wasn't leaving the Episcopal Church, he was converting to Christianity. (I'm too lazy to look for the link.) I'm beginning to see what he's talking about.

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

This is one of the fundamental struggles that every Christian has to deal with. We know that sins violate God's law. We know, for the most part, what sin is. We do not want to hurt God1, so we don't want to violate His law. 2 However, despite the fact that we know we should not sin, we do it anyway.

Paul describes a condition where he knows what he hates, but he does it anyway. I fully understand this; only God can understand fully how many times I've done something I knew was wrong even though I didn't really want to do it. I'm familiar with the circumstance, but I don't understand why it happens.

However, with some sins I find things seem to be working on a different level. There are some sins which I know are wrong. Furthermore, I know I shouldn't sin, but if I'm really brutally honest with myself I find that the reason I have trouble avoiding that particular sin is that deep down I really want to do it.

In other words, while it is my desire, in broad general terms, to not sin, the particuar sin is something I actually want to do.

I suspect that this is what Paul meant when he said, "Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me." Each of us are, I believe, genetically pre-disposed to certain types of sin. And despite what Howard Dean might say, just because you have the urge to commit the sin, that doesn't make it right. These are the sins that we are drawn to so strongly that, despite the fact that we know it's wrong, it almost feels like we can't help ourselves; sometimes you might even feel like it's not even you who's doing it. Almost as if your body was on cruise control.

These are the really insidious sins. The one's that you could never give up. At least not on your own.

Fortunately, you don't have to do it on your own. That's part of the reason God created the church. It's a support structure that allows Christians to work together to defeat the common enemy of sin and death.

Of course we'll never fully conquer sin. God knew that from the beginning. He doesn't expect us to. That's why he sent his Son.

I think at some point every Christian has cried alone into the night, "Who will rescue me?" Paul's response to that question was, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

1 I'm forgoing any discussion involving the ways in which God can, or cannot, be hurt. Just stay with me.

2 Of course, this at our most noble moments. For far to many of us, far too much of the time, we avoid sin just because we don't want to go to hell. That is to say we are, unfortunately, motivated to avoid sin as much, if not more, by enlightened self-interest than we are by principle.

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

Romans 14:20-23 ESV - Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

The larger context of this passage involves Paul's admonition not to engage in activities you do not beleive to be sinful if you know that someone else does believe the activity is sinful and also have reason to believe that your actions might cause that person to follow your lead. In those circumstances, you might not hve done anything wrong per se, but you would have contributed to someone else violating their conscience.

That is not what I want to talk about now. Instead, I want to talk about why it's so bad to violate your consceience, or even just to do something you find morally questionable.

Paul makes no secret, especially in Romans, of the concept that everyone has within themselves sufficient knowlege to discern right and wrong. That moral sense may not be as refined as what you would find in the Torah, but it is still there. We typically call that your conscience and Paul referst to people having the, "law written on their hearts."

As I said, our conscience is not as refined as the Torah or other explicit definitions of God's law. Consequently, it would not be fair to say that if you don't feel something is wrong, then it's OK. It would be accurate to say that if you thinik something is sinful, then for you it is.

Paul actually takes this one step further in Chapter 14. He tells us that everything we do is to be an act of faith in God. Therefore any act we commit which we are not sure, through our faith in Christ, is what God would have us to do, is sin. This is not because the action was wrong per se, but because the motivation was wrong.

Any act, no matter how noble, not performed is an act of faith is sin. This has two implications. The first is that there are no grey areas. If we are not sure we are doing the right thing, then we aren't. The first is more far reaching: In God's eyes morality is not just a set of rules, it is the expression of our relationship with God. Seen in that light it becomes obvious that obeying the law is the minimum, not the maximum, requirement for avoiding sin.

Truly living a sin-free life requires a total reordering of our lives and our priorities. I wonder if we really take that as seriously as we should. I know I often don't.

Sunday, November 09, 2003

I took away something else from the Matrix trilogy: it is a product of deeply confused people. They want it all. They want individualism and community; they want secularism and transcendence; they want the purity of committed love and the licentious fun of an S&M club; they want peace and the thrill of violence; they want God, but they want to design him on their own screens with their own programs by their own terms for their own needs, and having defined the divine on their own terms, they bristle when anyone suggests they have simply built a room with a mirror and flattering lighting. All three Matrix movies, seen in total, ache for a God. But they can’t quite go all the way. They’re like three movies about circular flat meat patties that can never quite bring themselves to say the word “hamburger.”

Having studiously avoided all the Matrix films, I can't comment on whether or not he's correct about the trilogy, but I do think he's described more than just these films; I think he's described a lot of people in the West. People do long for a god, but only if they're allowed to choose which one. And it's not enough to pick a god described by an actual religion; they have to be able to pick and choose each little characteristic.

A friend of mine and I worked out a rather silly analogy that, despite its silliness, makes a decent point. A lot of people seem to think that God is a buffet: They think that they can pay a small fee (in time, money, whatever) and then they get to choose which parts of God they'll take. But in reality, God is more like the 72 ounce steak at The Big Texan. Either you eat the whole thing, or you're going to have to pay.

Monday, November 03, 2003

Which is just as well. There is a notion in all the major religions that some sort of prayer tank needs to be filled before some concern will be met by God. No one knows how many prayers it will take, but spinning enough wheels or saying rosaries will eventually do the trick.

When asked to pray for someone or on my own initiative for others (like our soldiers and their families), I say one prayer and that's it. I usually say it immediately. I don't care whether it comes across as especially sincere or not. I mean to express my concern, and leave the rest up to God.

I believe in the efficacy of petitionary prayer, but I don't make my faith depend on it.

I certainly agree with Mark that that faith shouldn't depend on the answer to a particular prayer, but that's not what I want to talk about at the moment. Instead I'm concerned with the comparison he draws about the frequency of prayer.

While I don't fall into the "If we can just accumulate enough prayers, God will change his mind" camp, I do tend to petition God for the same thing repeatedly. In fact, I tend to continue to pray to God for something until the matter has been conclusively resolved one way or the other.

I've often wondered if this was the way it was supposed to work. After all, when Paul described praying to have the "thorn" (whatever it was) removed, he said he asked three times and in context it seems like he thought that quite a lot. Of course, Paul also records that God spoke to him directly on the subject so maybe he just stopped praying because God had given him a definitive answer in a more direct way than I'm used.

That's the only passage I can think of that's on point in regard to this subject, and I'm really not sure what it tells us. Does anyone have any other thoughts?

Thursday, October 09, 2003

There is a bumper sticker that drives me crazy. It reads, "God is my co-pilot." Theologically speaking, this is garbage. Apparently, I'm not the only who has a problem with this; I've seen another sticker that reads, "If God is your co-pilot, move over."

Today, I saw what has got to be the most theologically incorrect bumper sticker I've ever seen. It read, "Surpise God, become a Christian."

And if you think that bugs me, just imagine what it would do to David Heddle.

Wednesday, October 08, 2003

There are several passages in the Gospels where Jesus says or does something that I find hard to understand:

John 12:20-26 (ESV) Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus. And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.

Now I understand completely (I think) what Jesus was saying; clearly he was talking about his coming death. What I don't understand is what the relevance of these statements was to being told that some Greeks wished to see him; it appears to be a complete non sequiter.

This is hardly an isolated incident. I have frequently read passages in the Gospels which caused me some difficulty in determining what the connection was between the surrounding events and what Christ was saying.

I don't really have a point here; I just wanted to get that off my chest while I was thinking about it.

Sunday, September 21, 2003

Jack Rich has a great post about evangelizing to Jews. The impetus for the post is a Presbyterian congregation that presents itself as a Jewish institution. Such an organization raises a pair of questions. One of these questions is, "Should we evangelize to Jews?" On that question, Rich has this to say:

First, the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19, KJV)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Pretty clear, one would think, even for postmodern Presbys in Philly. To deny this Great Commission to all Christians in the name of avoiding offence is problemmatical, at best.

One either believes that Jesus is the only path to the Father, or one does not. If so, then don't we owe it to non-Christians to share the truth with them? If not, then none of this matters, and we're running social clubs instead of churches.

Just so. The other question is, "Should we specifically target Jews?"

So, should we ignore the Jews? As Jews, yes. We should evangelize to anyone and everyone, but not attempt to show how Jewish Christianity really is -- to the point of presenting a Christian denomination in the guise of one that looks a lot like a Jewish Reform temple. Christianity is very Jewish; our savior was a Jew. We honor, in our Scriptural canon, the same books as do the Jews. The ties that bind us are as mighty chains that will be unbroken to the end of time. This stated, we remain quite separate in our understanding of God's plan for us.

I think he's got this right as well. Our charge is to take the gospel to the whole world. Isolating specific populations and treating them differently seems an anathema to that command.

On another note, Rich also finds the methods of this congregation to be deceptive. I don't agree with this assessment, but I can understand why people would think so.

Sunday, September 14, 2003

One of the changes I have noticed in worship services during my memory (about 20 years) is that we seem to sing fewer and fewer traditional hymns and more and more "praise songs." I have nothing against praise songs, in fact I love singing them, but I fear the pendulum has swung too far.

One of the things that concerns me is that most praise songs don't accomplish the things we were told to do when we sing:

Col 3:16 (ESV) Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

It seems clear to me from this passage that Paul is saying that one of the things we are supposed to do while singing is teach. To do this, at least some of the songs we sing need to convey deep spiritual truths; they should express the things we are to do, the thoughts we should think, and the emotions we should feel. Our songs should lift not just our hearts, but our minds.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't sing songs of praise. In fact, we are also commanded to sing songs of praise. What I am saying is that a lot of newer "praise songs" express great joy, praise, and fellowship, but don't convey theological truths. As a consequence, the less we sing the more traditional hymns, the less we actually teach as we sing.

Thursday, September 11, 2003

Now there was a day when his sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother's house, and there came a messenger to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys feeding beside them, and the Sabeans fell upon them and took them and struck down the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you.” While he was yet speaking, there came another and said, “The fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants and consumed them, and I alone have escaped to tell you.” While he was yet speaking, there came another and said, “The Chaldeans formed three groups and made a raid on the camels and took them and struck down the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you.” While he was yet speaking, there came another and said, “Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother's house, and behold, a great wind came across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people, and they are dead, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”

Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped.

On days like these, when we remember our great losses, we sometimes find it hard to worship God. Job, however, immediately after losing all his property and all his children, fell to the ground and worshipped God.

Tuesday, September 09, 2003

Eugene Volokh has posted a letter from a Rabbi about whether or not the term "Jews for Jesus" is an oxymoron. I'm qoing to quote one paragraph here that I want to talk about:

Be peeved no longer. You are right about the view of traditional Judaism that there is no opt-out clause. Once a Member of the Tribe, always a MOT. Your friends, however, who call Jews for [Jesus] an oxymoron are also correct. The key to harmonizing these positions is in a phrase you employed in describing their position: "one can't ... theologically be a Jew and a Christian at the same time." This is arguably the case. Theologically, ideologically, experientially, one cannot practice "Judaism" in any mainstream form and Christianity at the same time. The term "Jews for Jesus" simply does not, in the popular mind, mean people of Jewish background who have embraced Chrisitianity. It does mean people who claim that their Jewish lives are enhanced by accepting Jesus as the traditional Jewish savior. They see Christianity as enhancing and fulfilling Judaism, rather than negating it. That makes as much sense as awarding a mink coat as a door prize at a PETA convention.

Eugene later asks:

I appreciate the Rabbi's arguments, and they may well be properly persuasive to many devout Jews. But I wonder just how one figures out that it makes no sense for people to "claim that their Jewish lives are enhanced by accepting Jesus as the traditional Jewish savior."

Here's what I mean by this: one of the key points of Judaism is that there is a Messiah coming. Hebrew scriptures contain prophecies about this in many places. (For instance, Moses spoke of the coming of another prophet like him.) Orthodox Jews and "Messianic" Jews both agree about the importance of the Messiah. (At least in general terms.) They disagree, however, about the identity of the Messiah. "Messianic" Jews believe that Jesus is the Messiah; Orthodox Jews clearly do not.

This difference is the crux of their disagreement. It is also central to the matter of whether someone can believe that "Jewish lives are accepted by accepting Jesus as the traditional Jewish savior," as well as whether they believe the term, "Jews for Jesus," is oxymoronic. If Jesus is, in fact, the Messiah, then it makes perfect sense that believing such is the logical, and meaningful, extension of Judaism and Jewish lives. If he is not, in fact, the Messiah, then those who believe that will naturally view belief in him as opposed to the Jewish faith and the term, "Jews for Jesus," to be an oxymoron.

In short, where you come down on this issue is entirely dependent on whether you believe Jesus to be the Messiah. Orthodox and Messianic Jews cannot, logically, resolve this issue as long as they disagree about the identity of the Messiah because the resolution of the issue Eugene raises is entirely dependent on their primary source of disagreement.